Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2016.

Non-Muslims[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This term has multiple domain-specific meanings in Arabic, but in current use for non-Muslims it is a slur. A literal equivalent of "non-Muslim" is used in mainstream discourse instead. This is like redirecting "black people" to the N-word. Just because the term was once commonly used in this way and is still being used in this way in some quarters doesn't mean that it's acceptable to equate the two in an encyclopedia. Eperoton (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are a lot of things a non-Muslim can be called (very ambiguous redirect) but obviously the current redirect is unacceptable as "kafir" is a pejorative. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gaijin42 in the previous discussion. Kafir is a term used in Islamic doctrine (and apparently conversation?) to refer in a derogatory sense to someone who does not follow Islam, but non-Muslim is a bland generic term for all things that are not Muslim. These two terms don't match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Islamic theology the term refers broadly to "unbelief" and related notions and it has been elaborated in various ways in application to both Muslims and non-Muslims. It is certainly used by some in everyday conversation as a derogatory term for non-Muslims. Eperoton (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Purity and pollution[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an idea in anthropology, especially applied to the Indian caste system, but it's not discussed at the target article. (There is an external link to a paper with this title.) There's a handful of search results for the phrase on Wikipedia, so there might be potential for an article. BDD (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dislike[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Like. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily dislike something without it rising to the level of disgust or revulsion. Delete, or retarget to Like as {{R from antonym}}. BDD (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

School-assessed coursework[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not hyphenated terms, not useful in search as the search engines just ignore these. Still working on the Neelix list Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment are we sure that "school assessed coursework" is unique to Victoria? -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this not just a fancy way of saying school work? Nothing unique to Victoria here. Let's redirect homework to schools in New Jersey and tests to schools in Paris. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If this points anywhere it should be Coursework, but I'm not sure that this is actually a meaningful phrase? Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Disapproval[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft retarget to wikt:disapproval. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word has a far broader meaning then a type of voting I'd never heard of. Retarget? Legacypac (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the ideal solution here would be a short page with a very brief (1 short sentence) definition, a link to Approval and a link to Wikt:disaproval. I'm not sure that this would survive as a dab page though and would be deleted by the folks who maintain dab pages in a rigid format. That would leave us with a redlink here, which is less useful than either of the proposed targets. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approval is a disambiguation page and not a great target for this title in my opinion. Soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Puzzlement[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Confusion. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else could this be directed too? Seems like a poor redirect. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that article to just plain Confusion, which redirected there. As opposed to what? Physical confusion? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A country or group of people can be in confusion too. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

쐃[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as there's currently no feasible target that is useful for the reader. Deryck C. 21:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of thousands of similar redirects to hangul, which is a rather unhelpful target: it doesn't actually mention those redirects.

  • The overwhelming majority are nonsense syllables like the one I nominated: not real words, have not ever been used in Korean, and show up on the internet only as mojibake and in lists of Unicode codepoints
  • A minority (e.g. 없) are real Korean morphemes or words but those words aren't specific to Korean culture so there's no obvious Wikipedia target for the meaning.
  • An even smaller minority are real words with obvious Wikipedia targets (e.g. 이 → Lee (Korean surname)), point to Latin-alphabet disambiguation pages consisting mostly of Korean-related topics (e.g. 정 → Jeong), or are disambiguation pages themselves (e.g. 김).
  • There's also a whole bunch of syllables which don't have redirects, e.g. 청.

I'm not entirely opposed to deleting these, but in the discussion three years ago there was some mention of the idea that all Unicode codepoints are likely search terms and should point somewhere. In the case of the nonsense syllables, there's only two better targets: hangul consonant and vowel tables (which explains how they're theoretically pronounced - but only if you know which of the collapse boxes to open, you can't use Ctrl+F to find it) and Hangul Syllables (which has an uncollapsed a table listing everything in the Unicode Block, but it tells you only the codepoint and no other information). Which one do you all think is better? 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the notion that "all Unicode codepoints are likely search terms and should point somewhere" (it may have been me that expressed it, I haven't checked). In the specific case I think that at present hangul consonant and vowel tables is marginally more useful, but I'd really rather that article be split into more specific sub-articles that are more useful for non-Korean speakers. At that point the redirect targets could be changed to the more specific location. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a stopgap solution, we could uncollapse the tables at hangul consonant and vowel tables; I don't feel like that would make the article too difficult to navigate (especially if we added section headers), though others might disagree. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Civil war in Yemen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget. This was created as a redirect to the disambiguation page, and all edits since have been bots fixing double redirects, as related pages have moved. And that's about right—this should target "Yemeni Civil War" whatever it is. No human has tried to make it do anything else. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirected to Yemeni Civil War, a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chaowen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Zhengyin" and "chaowen" are Chinese words written in pinyin. The target is unrelated to Chinese and is not called "zhengyin" or "chaowen" in Chinese anyway. There's no better target; a user who enters these strings is best served by seeing the search results & all the partial matches therein, which consist of topics which are actually related to Chinese. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Chaowen" per nom or Very Weak Retarget to Chefchaouen which is also known as Chaouen as possible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both.
    • My best interpretation is that Zhengyin and Chaowen are Pinyin transliterations of 朝文/조문 and 正音/정음 respectively. Both concepts are discussed in the target article, but the Pinyin romanisation scheme (a 20th-century Chinese invention) has no affinity to the Korean language, so they should be deleted along the lines of WP:RFOREIGN.
    • For both people named Zheng Yin, Zheng is surname and Yin is given name. All scholarly Chinese romanisation schemes separate surname and given name so it would at best be an {{R from misspelling}} to Zheng Yin.
    • "Chaowen" is the given name of several Chinese people mentioned in other articles, so redirecting to Chefchaouen is less useful than letting readers see search results. Deryck C. 11:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FBS Radio Network[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Baron MacLeod of Fairy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent title. Not a plausible misspelling, as the correct title is Baron MacLeod of Fuinary. The Traditionalist (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I wondered whether this was a pronunciation spelling of Fuinary, Highland Scottish place name pronunciations not necessarily being obvious to an English reader. I haven't been able to find any written references to how it is pronounced, but there is a folk tune, Farewell to Fuinary with several renditions on Youtube. In none of the videos I watched was "fuinary" pronounced as or approximating "fairy", rather something more like /ˈfjuː.ən.əe(ɹ).i/ (FEW-in-air-ee). That's not conclusive obviously, as it could be distorted to fit the meter, but in the absence of anything supporting a "fairy" pronunciation, I'm recommending delete. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be a pejorative? --BDD (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That did cross my mind, but nothing in the article seems to suggest he is more or less likely than any other person to be described in that manner, and so it's worth looking to see if there is a reason to keep or delete for definite. If it is deleted it doesn't really matter if it was intended as a pejorative or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_3&oldid=1037883000"